W. (2008)

in a week that has seen a great deal of change in the oval office, i looked forward to spending a couple of hours looking back at the current admission in full knowledge that world politics was now devoid of the idiocy on display in oliver stone's current picture. "oh how we'll laugh!" i thought, and looked forward to seeing the film a great deal.

first things first. the good. josh brolin as bush is wonderful. his performance is inspired, if not up to his recent work with the coen brothers.

in all honesty brolin's performance is the one positive from the experience of seeing W. the main problem stems from the fact that the film doesnt seem to know what it is. a times its high drama, while at others its a second rate comedy, aiming at far too obvious targets using comedically unaccomplished actors. top of the pile of mediocracy is thandie newton, here supposedly playing condoleezza rice, although i personally dont consider a routine of tics and exagerated mannerisms to be much of a performance. i genuinely cant think of a worse performance that iv ever seen in a film, it brings the whole thing down to the level of a quickly produced saturday night skit.

im not the worlds biggest fan of oliver stone. jfk is a complete and utter masterpiece, one of the greatest films ever made, but aside from that i consider his body of work to be fairly lacking. his most recent work especially seems to lack the political bite that his earlier work had, which is particularly strange considering that his last two films have been about 9/11 (world trade centre) and george bush.

one positive thought that did come out of this fairly mediocre experience was the concept of time contextuality in film. let me explain - i saw W. two days after the new president elect was chosen, therefore my experience was much different to how it would have been had i seen the film two days before barack obama's victory.